Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time (page 5)

Sulla

AllTimeJeff: It's a shame that the Christian god, whether Triune or monotheistic, is limited to the strong or weak arguments of the person who is arguing for the existence of their god. It is a shame that your Triune god must rely on you for strong arguments Sulla, and others for weak arguments. But I bet your Triune god loves you more for how stunningly awesome you do at explaining the Trinity better then other Trinitarians.

What, precisely, makes you think god must "rely" on me? And what is all this 'God is limited to good arguments' nonsense? You're not even coherent. But what comes through very clearly is naked hostility: I point out the lacunae in your understanding, you get snarky.

I laugh. Seriously, you remind me of superior acting Trinitarians who though comfortable in their arrogance, forget that the teachings of Jesus are more important then the concept of who he is.

If you worship Jesus, whether as part of a Trinity or not, I am pretty sure he doesn't appreciate you acting like a superior, condescending, arrogant ass. Don't get too caught up in the concept, just be a good Christian. I am sure that Jesus will take care of the rest.

I don't think the teachings of Jesus are more important that the concept of who he is. To be honest, I don't much give a damn for the poor or the weak or the sick. And if were just some Jewish prophet telling me I need to, he could go to hell for all I care. Seriously, the dude said I have to pick up my cross and follow him? He's full of it, right?

Unless he is God. That changes things.

As for whether the Lord appreciates me acting the way I do: I expect mostly he does not. On the other hand, try reading a couple of St. Paul's letters; we jackasses are in good company. I haven't even hinted that you ought to go get your dick cut off; guess that makes me a real nice guy.

AllTimeJeff

Hi Sulla.

Sorry, Jeff, this thread is about whether it makes sense to argue the Trinity.

Well, yeah, I know. I started it.

I think you are mostly correct to say that there is no point to it, though for different reasons. You think it's pointless because those who accept the Trinity are, basically, stupid. I think it is because those who reject the Trinity are ignorant and proud.

Well, I think some Trinitarians are tools, but that probably wouldn't suprise you. I do have to say, not all Trinitarians are tools, but I am not sure I can exclude you from that list at the moment. I would ask you what qualifies someone as a non ignorant and humble non rejecter of the Trinity, but at this point, we might be using to many words, and it could possibly turn into a contest between you and I of who is better at putting the other viewpoint down in a condescending and superior manner. I'd hate for this to degenerate into such a word battle.

You are pretty much the one who called believers stupid, Jeff. And you are the one who seems not to be familiar with the arguments in support of the Trinity -- I mean the good arguments -- and who seems not to care. One of us is arrogant, that's for sure.

From one online bullshitter to another, i would like to compliment you on your skillfull dodge. (although I never called believers stupid. I think you might be both sensitive and stupid, but I don't want to lump all believers with you) As you may or may not recall, I asked you before, and I ask again for a "good" Trinitarian argument. But hey, you don't have to make it. All you have to do is imply that I haven't done enough research, and if I did, I would surely see things your way.

You could be man enough (or woman enough? On this I sincerely do not know the gender of my word sparring partner) to actually post your own "good" argument as a seperate thread.

Or you could just come on my thread and make implications in the hopes I take the bait.

Instead, I would like to call you out for not putting out your stupendeous, fabulous, awesome, superior Trinitarian argument. It's up to you, but don't take a swing at me for not knowing until you put your money where your obviously large mouth is.

To all believers: I want you to know that I respect your right to believe as you want, even in a Trinity, and I don't think that you are as stupid as Sulla.

I hope that makes everyone feel better.

designs

I'm just guessing Sulla but I bet your god has never shown up in person. If you have proof now is your opportunity.

AllTimeJeff

Oh good, two for the price of one!

What, precisely, makes you think god must "rely" on me?

Because god isn't defending himself, you are defending a personal belief.

And what is all this 'God is limited to good arguments' nonsense?

Uh, your previous statements about me putting down "weak" arguments, thus implying that there are stronger "good" arguments.

You're not even coherent.

Hey, I am not the one insisting that there are good 'non weak' arguments that support a god who is Triune and invisible. Surely this makes you more coherenent.

But what comes through very clearly is naked hostility:

It's actually a lack of tolerance for bullshit packaged in a superior condescending manner.

I point out the lacunae in your understanding, you get snarky.

I point out that your god isn't here, you get snarky.

Next!

shamus100

Jeff,

I don't understand.

When are you sending me my money?

AllTimeJeff

Do you take a check Shamus? What are you going to do with the money, buy the Maple Leafs some players so you can lose in the first round of the playoffs next year? ;)

AllTimeJeff

Unless Sulla wants to continue the conversation, I would like to say that while I honestly don't, never have, and likely never will believe in the Christian Trinity, I don't have a problem with people believing it.

In Sulla's case, I just pointed out that all Sulla has said and implied in no way defended the Trinity.

This thread was a comment by me, and I knew it would upset some, but that can't be helped.

For the record, I have studied the Trinity extensively, to the point where I realize that 1) The Trinity is in no way how JW's describe it, and 2) It still is illogical, thus making it eligible as an article of faith.

That's all.

Sulla

I'm glad you've pointed out I have said nothing to defend the teaching of the Trinity. I have not asserted otherwise, of course, but good of you to point it out. I would like to point out that nothing AllTimeJeff has said and implied in no way defends Sting Theory.

In case anybody was wondering.

You are a very difficult fellow to agree with, Jeff. Like I said, I'm in substantial agreement with your observation that the Trinity is not usefully discussed on boards like this. I happen to think that is mostly because people on your side don't bother to educate themselves about what it is they disagree with. And because they have a fudamentally dishonest approach to things where they prefer to engage the weakest arguments of their opponents instead of the strongest arguments.

Look, I see that you now say you've studied the matter extensively and still conclude it is illogical. I don't believe you. I think, if you had, you would not toss out things like 1+1+1~=1 or the amazing observation that, in humans, natures and persons are not separable. You'd be entitled to think the same of me if I tried to defend the teaching with some H2O example, or egg example, or clover. I didn't, of course, and wouldn't because I know that those are not compelling arguments. Anybody who would be convinced by those arguments for the Trinity is probably not engaging the question at a very high level.

But, back to you. I think this thread has generally supported my viewpoint that anti-Trinitarians like you prefer cheap shots to real discussion. And I think this thread has shown a high level of bad faith from your side: you keep changing the subject: for example, asking me to offer up a strong argument for the Trinity (how many times do I have to agree with you that there isn't much point in that sort of discussion?). And I think this thread has shown how you mis-understand things like the observation that the Trinity is a mystery, preferring to suppose that means those who believe it accept illogical arguments.

I, on the other hand, have shown no particular inclination to adopt illogical reasoning at all. I am the paragon of rationality.

So, where do you think the problem lies?

ziddina

"...I would like to point out that nothing AllTimeJeff has said and implied in no way defends Sting Theory. ..."

STING theory??? Or do you mean 'string' theory...??

shamus100

I don't watch hockey, b*tch. (comment referred to ATJ, not at any woman. It's okay to call a man a b*tch, trust me )

Why Arguments and Debates on the Trinity are a Waste of Time

Share this